State v. Sutton

[Cite as State v. Sutton, 2020-Ohio-3604.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
MADISON COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2019-08-024
: OPINION
- vs - 7/6/2020
:
CHRISTOPHER SUTTON, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM MADISON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. CRI20170127
Steven J. Pronai, Madison County Prosecuting Attorney, Rachel M. Price, 59 North Main
Street, London, Ohio 43140, for appellee
Christopher Sutton, #A740038, Belmont Correctional Institution, 68518 Bannock Road,
P.O. Box 540, St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950-0540, pro se
S. POWELL, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Christopher Sutton, appeals the decision of the Madison County
Court of Common Pleas denying his motion to vacate his conviction and set aside his guilty
plea to one count of possession of hashish and two counts of aggravated possession of
drugs. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm the trial court's decision.
{¶ 2} On November 13, 2017, Sutton entered into a plea agreement and pled guilty
Madison CA2019-08-024
to one count of possession of hashish, a third-degree felony, and two counts of aggravated
possession of drugs, both fifth-degree felonies. After engaging Sutton in a plea colloquy,
the trial court accepted Sutton's guilty plea upon finding it was knowingly, intelligently, and
voluntarily entered. The trial court then proceeded to sentence Sutton to the parties' agreed
upon 59-month prison sentence. Sutton did not appeal his conviction.
{¶ 3} On May 8, 2018, August 6, 2018, and April 5, 2019 Sutton filed three
successive motions requesting the trial court grant him early judicial release. The trial court
denied each of Sutton's motions. Shortly thereafter, on July 29, 2019, Sutton filed a motion
to vacate his conviction and set aside his guilty plea. In support of his motion, Sutton argued
the parties' agreed upon 59-month prison sentence was void because the trial court failed
to make the necessary consecutive sentence findings prior to issuing its sentencing
decision. Sutton also argued that his guilty plea was void because he was "induced by an
unfulfillable promise made by the prosecution in order to induce a plea," thereby rendering
his guilty plea less than knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered.
{¶ 4} On August 5, 2019, the trial court issued a decision denying Sutton's motion.1
In so holding, the trial court found "[t]he sentence imposed was agreed to by the parties on
the record therefore findings to support the sentence are not needed." The trial court also
found "the transcript filed by [Sutton] defeats [his] argument that promises of early release
were represented." Sutton now appeals the trial court's decision, raising four assignments
of error for review. For ease of discussion, Sutton's first and fourth assignments of error
will be addressed together, as will Sutton's second and third assignments of error.
1. Because "[c]ourts may recast irregular motions into whatever category necessary to identify and establish
the criteria by which the motion should be judged," the trial court could have recast Sutton's motion as an
untimely petition for postconviction relief. State v. Braunskill, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2018-03-006, 2018-
Ohio-3738, ¶ 16. However, regardless of whether Sutton's motion should have been recast as a petition for
postconviction relief, or even a motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Crim.R. 32.1, we will assume Sutton's
motion was timely filed for purposes of this appeal.
-2-
Madison CA2019-08-024
{¶ 5} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 6} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ENTERING A JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION BASED ON A GUILTY PLEA THAT WAS NOT KNOWING, INTELLIGENT
AND VOLUNTARY.
{¶ 7} Assignment of Error No. 4:
{¶ 8} TRIAL COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN VIOLATION
OF THE 6TH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I SECTION 10,
16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION AND THE APPLICATION OF THE PLAIN ERROR
DOCTRINE.
{¶ 9} In his first assignment of error, Sutton argues the trial court erred by denying
his motion to vacate his conviction and set aside his guilty plea because his plea was not
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. However, as noted above, Sutton did not
appeal his conviction. Because Sutton could have raised this issue in a direct appeal,
Sutton's claim alleging his guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily
entered is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See, e.g., State v. Miller, 12th Dist.
Clermont No. CA2016-08-057, 2017-Ohio-2801, ¶ 20 (appellant's claims alleging his guilty
plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered were barred by the doctrine of
res judicata where appellant did not raise the issue in a direct appeal).
{¶ 10} So, too, is Sutton's claim in his fourth assignment of error alleging he received
ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Id. at ¶ 21 (appellant's claims alleging he received
ineffective assistance of counsel were also barred by the doctrine of res judicata where
appellant could have raised the issue in a direct appeal). Therefore, because Sutton's
claims raised herein are all barred by the doctrine of res judicata, Sutton's first and fourth
assignments of error lack merit and are overruled.
{¶ 11} Assignment of Error No. 2:
-3-
Madison CA2019-08-024
{¶ 12} THE TRIAL COURT IMPUGNED THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIAL
PROCESS WHEN IT SENTENCED SUTTON TO CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES
THEREBY IMPOSING A SENTENCE CONTRARY TO R.C. 2929.14(C)(D).
{¶ 13} Assignment of Error No. 3:
{¶ 14} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF MR. SUTTON BY
IMPOSING A SENTENCE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.
{¶ 15} In his second assignment of error, Sutton argues the trial court erred by
denying his motion because the trial court did not make the requisite consecutive sentence
findings prior to sentencing him to the parties' agreed upon 59-month prison sentence.
However, despite Sutton's claims, "the Ohio Supreme Court has held that an agreed
sentence is not subject to review for failure of a trial court to make statutory findings before
imposing consecutive sentences." State v. Savage, 12th Dist. Madison Nos. CA2014-02-
002, CA2014-02-003, CA2014-03-006, and CA2014-03-007, 2015-Ohio-574, ¶ 34, citing
State v. Porterfield, 106 Ohio St. 3d 5, 2005-Ohio-3095, ¶ 25.
{¶ 16} The same is true as it relates to Sutton's claim raised in his third assignment
of error alleging the trial court's decision to sentence him to the parties' agreed upon 59-
month prison sentence was not supported by the record. See, e.g., State v. Brown, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104095, 2017-Ohio-184, ¶ 16-20 (appellant's argument claiming the
trial court's decision sentencing him to an agreed 11-year prison sentence was "not
supported by the record" and was "beyond the scope of appellate review"). Therefore,
finding no merit to any of the arguments raised herein, Sutton's second and third
assignments of error also lack merit and are overruled.
{¶ 17} Judgment affirmed.
RINGLAND and PIPER, JJ., concur.
-4-